I switched from Callaway Fusions when I could not control distance. It seemed that sometimes a "good swing" would spring off the face and launch well longer than planned. They were more "forgiving" than my current clubs but distance was always a guess. I gave up average distance for consistent distance. So, I opted for less distance.

The other difference I've noticed is that my current clubs are not designed to launch as high as theFusions but, the sole/turf interaction is better for me -- particularly out of the rough.

For me it was because I wanted to learn how to shape the ball and become a better ball striker. I was playing well with my Burner 2.0's but felt I was relying more on the club than my golf swing. I switched to a set of MP-29's and have become a better ball striker and can shape shots like never before, also my distance control is 10x better.

People think good players shape the ball. They generally don't. You are right and you are not missing a thing. Also GI irons are just about as easy to "shape" as a blade.

It doesn't matter what other players can and can't do. It should be about what you want out of irons. IMO GI irons are nowhere as easy to shapes as blades for "most" people out there. Since everyone's game is a little bit different then it would be fair to assume some players can also shape GI's fairlry easy but most can't. And you never know if your missing anything until you try it.

It doesn't matter what other players can and can't do. It should be about what you want out of irons. IMO GI irons are nowhere as easy to shapes as blades for "most" people out there. Since everyone's game is a little bit different then it would be fair to assume some players can also shape GI's fairlry easy but most can't. And you never know if your missing anything until you try it.

Unless you shape by supposedly manipulating the club face through impact(which is the wrong way), GI irons should be just about as easy to "shape" for most people IMO.

For the sake of avoiding a stupid argument where we go back and forth with reason why we are both right, how about we agree that not all GI irons are created equally and some may be easier to shape shots correctly. (Those closer to blade designs.) While others (closer to SGI irons) are not as easy.

For the sake of avoiding a stupid argument where we go back and forth with reason why we are both right, how about we agree that not all GI irons are created equally and some may be easier to shape shots correctly. (Those closer to blade designs.) While others (closer to SGI irons) are not as easy.

How about we just understand the facts of the matter: GI irons are no more difficult to "shape" when hit on the sweet spot than the most blade-like of clubs. It's just physics, and it's fact. All the ball cares about at impact is clubhead mass (can easily be the same on a GI iron and a blade), the direction of the center of mass, the location of the center of mass, and the angle of the face.

Where GI irons excel is in getting the ball up in the air, and on helping to reduce the error caused by mishits due to their higher MOI. But nobody good "shapes the ball" by mishitting the ball (missing the sweet spot).

In short, it's an old wive's tale that GI irons are "harder" to shape the ball. I used to say the same types of things. And it's still true in one area - because GI irons tend to want to force the ball UP in the air with a much lower CG, they tend to be more resistant to hitting a ball LOW. But a) we're talking about a few degrees, and b) nobody is referring to hitting the ball 2° lower then they say "shape the ball." They're talking about curve.

I will also add that I agree that hitting blades can improve your "ballstriking" because you will know more when you mishit the ball slightly. GI irons tend to transmit less feedback, so you don't know if you tried to cut the ball but hit it on the toe and ended up with a straight push because the gear effect canceled out the fade you tried to hit, while a blade will tell you "you toed it!"

Everybody's got there "fact" filled ideas that they are right and good for you, but if you took the moment to really read what I posted It started with "IMO" and also stated That for "most" people it is not easy because 90% of people using GI irons are using them because they can't hit the ball flush. So what you are saying is as long as you hit the "sweet spot" it will not be harder shape the shot? But in fact it is making it harder than a blade to shape because it has to be a flush shot? I'm not saying it cant be done, but more has to go right with a GI to shape a shot than with a blade.

Everybody's got there "fact" filled ideas that they are right and good for you, but if you took the moment to really read what I posted It started with "IMO" and also stated That for "most" people it is not easy because 90% of people using GI irons are using them because they can't hit the ball flush. So what you are saying is as long as you hit the "sweet spot" it will not be harder shape the shot? But in fact it is making it harder than a blade to shape because it has to be a flush shot? I'm not saying it cant be done, but more has to go right with a GI to shape a shot than with a blade.

I don't know anything about hitting blades, but I have no problem curving a Ping G5 iron. Sometimes on purpose - sometimes not. Sometimes on purpose - but in the wrong direction. I can't imagine wanting it to be easier to curve it.

I don't know anything about hitting blades, but I have no problem curving a Ping G5 iron. Sometimes on purpose - sometimes not. Sometimes on purpose - but in the wrong direction. I can't imagine wanting it to be easier to curve it.

Exactly. There are an awful lot of people out there hitting epic slices and hooks with GI or even SGI irons. Claims about these clubs being more difficult to shape are just myths.

If a flat surface strikes a round projectile the flight of that projectile will be dictated by the direction the flat surface is facing and the path it took into impact. That's pretty much the end of story.

Well now you are just going against yourself, was it not you who just posted this? Is it really that hard to not try and assume you know more than someone else? Especially when I came on here and gave an example of something that worked for "me" and if you look back I stated

Quote:

FOR ME it was because I wanted to learn how to shape the ball and become a better ball striker. I was playing well with my Burner 2.0's but felt I was relying more on the club than my golf swing. I switched to a set of MP-29's and have become a better ball striker and can shape shots like never before, also my distance control is 10x better.

Exactly. There are an awful lot of people out there hitting epic slices and hooks with GI or even SGI irons. Claims about these clubs being more difficult to shape are just myths.

If a flat surface strikes a round projectile the flight of that projectile will be dictated by the direction the flat surface is facing and the path it took into impact. That's pretty much the end of story.

If that were even remotely true than all irons would be the same and there would be no difference between blades and GI irons.